There is no reason for a new MMORPG to ever be sub based. Sub based games were a product of bandwidth cost which is something that has mostly become a non issue. This is like saying people should pay by the hour like they did when early MUDs hit, it is a just an obsolete payment method.
The only way I'd ever play a sub based game is if the game was free and it was earning its cash off of subs alone. That is a business model that at least makes a little sense. I'm not dishing out full price and then paying monthly and then paying for an expansion, that payment model is just obsolete.
I'm not playing Wildstar regardless because it is a really bad game.
Great for the initial purchase. But once you've played the content. You're playing content lite with a cash shop shoved in your face at every possible moment. The game no longer has any lasting value whether you decide to use the cash shop or not.
No thank you.
Shoved in your face? I really don't think you actually played GW2. You literally have no need to use the cash shop. The only slightly "gotta have it" thing I could imagine is the extra bag slots. But even still nothing about it is shoved in your face, they don't even open the shop screen when you launch like many other cash shop games do.
I don't think you actually played Guild Wars 2 instead.
Every "living story" released has been a thinly veiled advertisement for the cash shop.
Every thing at end game steers you towards the trading post and encouraging you to purchase gems to convert them into gold.
Please stop until you embarass yourself some more.
That's a compelling, grammatically sound and informative counter argument you have there, sir.
There is no reason for a new MMORPG to ever be sub based. Sub based games were a product of bandwidth cost which is something that has mostly become a non issue. This is like saying people should pay by the hour like they did when early MUDs hit, it is a just an obsolete payment method.
No reason fo... whut?
Revenue models are about maximizing profit for the company. That's all. That being the case, there is no reason for most new MMORPGs *not* to have both a box price and a mandatory sub. They just need to have the addition of a cash shop planned out and ready to implement for when sub numbers start dropping substantially. The road to maximizing revenue seems to be box price + mandatory sub, wait a few months, add the cash shop and the free option, swim in money pit. Any other approach appears to leave money on the table that could have gone in the companies pockets.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
B2P is all good as long as its fair and few companies do. GW2 was the best I have seen of that but again I dont mind a sub as long as its fair and they dont have all sorts of things you cant earn in game in a cash shop. Wildstar gets greedy I will drop them sub or B2P. So far I like what I see as is.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle B2P is all good as long as its fair and few companies do. GW2 was the best I have seen of that but again I dont mind a sub as long as its fair and they dont have all sorts of things you cant earn in game in a cash shop. Wildstar gets greedy I will drop them sub or B2P. So far I like what I see as is.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret; the companies making these games are all equally greedy. They just have different theories about which approach will get them the most money.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle B2P is all good as long as its fair and few companies do. GW2 was the best I have seen of that but again I dont mind a sub as long as its fair and they dont have all sorts of things you cant earn in game in a cash shop. Wildstar gets greedy I will drop them sub or B2P. So far I like what I see as is.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret; the companies making these games are all equally greedy. They just have different theories about which approach will get them the most money.
I dont agree, they all there to make money but greedy is a very big jump from wanting to make money. Its a fact, some game companies only care about the bottom line while others are happy as long as they are making a profit. I have been MMOing for 15 years and I can tell very quickly who I will not buy from any more.
I dont agree, they all there to make money but greedy is a very big jump from wanting to make money. Its a fact, some game companies only care about the bottom line while others are happy as long as they are making a profit. I have been MMOing for 15 years and I can tell very quickly who I will not buy from any more.
We can agree to disagree, but I don't think the divide is between companies that care about more than the bottom line, and companies that don't care about more than the bottom line. I think it's between companies that are good at pretending to care about more than the bottom line, because they think doing so gets them more business, and companies that are either bad at pretending or don't think there is any point in trying to pretend.
Note, I'm not saying there aren't individuals at any given company who care about things other that maximizing profit, I'm just saying the people who actually make the decisions about revenue models are profit focused, and any decision they make is because they honestly believe it will help them make more money, not because of any creative or "ethical" concerns.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I dont agree, they all there to make money but greedy is a very big jump from wanting to make money. Its a fact, some game companies only care about the bottom line while others are happy as long as they are making a profit. I have been MMOing for 15 years and I can tell very quickly who I will not buy from any more.
We can agree to disagree, but I don't think the divide is between companies that care about more than the bottom line, and companies that don't care about more than the bottom line. I think it's between companies that are good at pretending to care about more than the bottom line, because they think doing so gets them more business, and companies that are either bad at pretending or don't think there is any point in trying to pretend.
Note, I'm not saying there aren't individuals at any given company who care about things other that maximizing profit, I'm just saying the people who actually make the decisions about revenue models are profit focused, and any decision they make is because they honestly believe it will help them make more money, not because of any creative or "ethical" concerns.
Yes but Im saying looking to make a profit is not what makes a company greedy. Your painting to wide a stroke because by your definition all companies are greedy. I know business that wont compromise on quality and customer service even if they have to lose profits at time to do so. You can call that greedy because you say thats only to win more customers and maybe thats a vald plan but not so with all companies and wanting to make money is not greedy, thats good business for even the customer.
B2P isn't as horrific as F2P but it's still pretty bad. It's nearly impossible for companies to make enough money without putting some kind of pay 2 win in their cash shop.
pay 2 win is for scrubs. Play to win, or don't play.
The model isn't broken anyways (subs). What's broken is the overall game design. Single player games aren't worth a sub. When so-called MMORPGs are designed for "wider appeal" and "casuals" they focus too much on solo and nowhere near enough on grouping, and thus lack the potential to hook people for the long haul. Nobody wants to sub to a causal game they're not fully committed to and is full of single player content (content you can get from almost ANY game genre).
Subs worked when MMORPGs were a distinct genre with a specific type of gameplay (grouping), with content designed to keep people around for the long haul (grouping/raiding), and when the genre wasn't dumbed down for people who have no business leaving the TV set.
Subs can still work if companies produce appropriate content and give you a reason to sub. They just haven't been doing it. Games that follow the SWTOR model of making 95% of the game solo easy mode that you can finish in a few weeks will never be able to stay sub-based. No developer can crank out enough solo easy mode content to keep people hopping. And by the time they realize they didn't do enough with end game and catch up, most of the people who bought the game are done and gone. That's the new design model for modern MMORPGs - the model of sure to fail.
These kinds of designs can sell a lot of units (hi ESO) because RPG players like any solid RPG - and some of these games (SWTOR, TSW for ex) have really good solo content that approaches that of the best of single player RPGs, but that's no way to build a subscriber base and it's not something that's worth a sub. Ie, it's no way to design an MMORPG.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
B2P does not properly support real MMORPGs. The developers want Wildstar to be a real MMO, not a buy to play, beat it, shelf it, pseudo "MMO" like GW2.
B2P does not properly support real MMORPGs. The developers want Wildstar to be a real MMO, not a buy to play, beat it, shelf it, pseudo "MMO" like GW2.
Funny since GW2 is probably closest thing to MMO we had in years and WS is a lobby game.
It probably doesnt really matter anyway. We already know that within 3-6 months there wont be enough players subbed and the game will be forced to change business models.
We have seen it with so many new MMO's in the last few years and Wildstar has nothing in its roadmap to indicate any other outcome than the above.
If they can prove me wrong, I will be happy because it might indicate WoW's dominance is finally faltering in a meaningful way but I find this a highly unlikely outcome particularly with TESO also in the market.
Time will tell but I really dont like Wildstar's chances of staying subscription only.
Unless I'm very blind I'm not seeing the option that I'd vote: I think it would work as B2P, but I'll play it anyway as subscription based.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
The way people go on about payment models for the pittance sums involved I'd hate to witness a major purchase. Just like I have NO idea how much milk or bread costs I just buy it and the same goes for $3.75 per week on a game that I enjoy. Too much energy wasted in these pointless circle jerks.
Great for the initial purchase. But once you've played the content. You're playing content lite with a cash shop shoved in your face at every possible moment. The game no longer has any lasting value whether you decide to use the cash shop or not.
No thank you.
[mod edit]
Oh and since you are clearly out of the loop, they'll be adding 40 new traits. [mod edit]
The game has no paywalls at all, i don't know what are you talking about, really. Where is the cash shop shoved in your face? Please tell me because idk, if you don't specifically look for it, you'll never see it. Do you get in-game mails to buy stuff from the cash shop? Do you feel like paying $$ to get ascended or legendary? Only a noob would do that anyway. The skilled people in this game could care less about gear.
Sure, living story didn't live up to expectation, but on the bright side, they reworked more than a few zones and destroyed the main player hub. And all you see now is ruin of a once great city. Nobody else does that. Every other MMO feels static, or in TESO's case, phased. LA is destroyed and its for everyone to see. Do name another MMO that does that. Most if not all create the world once and then only expand to it. Gw2 changes that, without a paywall. That's why your post is bullshit.
Originally posted by DamonVile This is like asking a republican if they think a candidate should be more democrat ( or vise versa ). People are entrenched in their beliefs about payment models. Asking if a game should be more like (payment model xxx) doesn't show that the game would do better as such, it only provides another opportunity for the same people to say the same thing they do about every game.
Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
Originally posted by Voqar B2P isn't as horrific as F2P but it's still pretty bad. It's nearly impossible for companies to make enough money without putting some kind of pay 2 win in their cash shop. pay 2 win is for scrubs. Play to win, or don't play. The model isn't broken anyways (subs). What's broken is the overall game design. Single player games aren't worth a sub. When so-called MMORPGs are designed for "wider appeal" and "casuals" they focus too much on solo and nowhere near enough on grouping, and thus lack the potential to hook people for the long haul. Nobody wants to sub to a causal game they're not fully committed to and is full of single player content (content you can get from almost ANY game genre). Subs worked when MMORPGs were a distinct genre with a specific type of gameplay (grouping), with content designed to keep people around for the long haul (grouping/raiding), and when the genre wasn't dumbed down for people who have no business leaving the TV set. Subs can still work if companies produce appropriate content and give you a reason to sub. They just haven't been doing it. Games that follow the SWTOR model of making 95% of the game solo easy mode that you can finish in a few weeks will never be able to stay sub-based. No developer can crank out enough solo easy mode content to keep people hopping. And by the time they realize they didn't do enough with end game and catch up, most of the people who bought the game are done and gone. That's the new design model for modern MMORPGs - the model of sure to fail. These kinds of designs can sell a lot of units (hi ESO) because RPG players like any solid RPG - and some of these games (SWTOR, TSW for ex) have really good solo content that approaches that of the best of single player RPGs, but that's no way to build a subscriber base and it's not something that's worth a sub. Ie, it's no way to design an MMORPG.
This is the real problem right here. That people actually believe this when it has been disproven by many games that are doing just fine using a B2P or F2P model. The only reason to have a sub fee is to get more money out of the suckers that will pay it. The sub fee turns into pure profit for the company. Then they put all of their work into an expansion that they can charge you for again the next year.
P2P existed because hardware and bandwidth was a major expense when the first MMORPGs came out. The money never went into development, it always has gone into maintenance. Games just don't need a sub fee to pay for that maintenance anymore. It is an outdated payment model that is going to die probably after this next wave of games fails to sustain it.
Now if they charge a sub fee and never charge for any expansion content, then a sub fee makes some sort of sense. But any game charging a sub fee that also charges for the expansions is just stealing money from you.
Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
Welp....,if only thick skulls could digest this, but alas .. guess that's why they are are thick skulled.
Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
Welp....,if only thick skulls could digest this, but alas .. guess that's why they are are thick skulled.
Not thick but seems to understand the B2P system then the two of you. Changing a game from P2P to B2P with a cash shop takes work. You need to take items out of the game that are worth putting into the item shop. You need to put systems in the game that make you want to use the cash shop. Some games that have made the transition spent 6-12 months setting it up. WoW has been working on it since they released their sparkle pony mount over a year ago and only just started to make the cash shop a thing. A game releasing designed as P2P cant flip a switch, its designed from the ground up. Maybe one day they will make that move but thats a down the road thing.
Originally posted by Prhyme Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
An MMO that has to survive on microtransactions becomes about selling microtransactions.
The payment model is no longer how you access the game, the payment model becomes the game.
Every aspect of the game becomes about directing you towards "optional" microtransactions.
So, any aspect of the game that cant be monetized becomes marginalized.
Originally posted by PrhymeWhy doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
Welp....,if only thick skulls could digest this, but alas .. guess that's why they are are thick skulled.
Not thick but seems to understand the B2P system then the two of you. Changing a game from P2P to B2P with a cash shop takes work. You need to take items out of the game that are worth putting into the item shop. You need to put systems in the game that make you want to use the cash shop. Some games that have made the transition spent 6-12 months setting it up. WoW has been working on it since they released their sparkle pony mount over a year ago and only just started to make the cash shop a thing. A game releasing designed as P2P cant flip a switch, its designed from the ground up. Maybe one day they will make that move but thats a down the road thing.
I'm 100% sure that they built this functionality into the game. Why do you think ESO is using a cash shop format for the basic services they offer? It is so down the line they can add to it. It took TSW almost no time to go to a cash shop from P2P. It also takes no time to add stuff to a cash shop because a good game has almost all cosmetic stuff or just shortcut stuff in the cash shop. The only things worth buying in GW2's shop as an example are inventory/bank slots. Everything else can be obtained in game or is purely cosmetic. GW2 has pretty much proven that B2P works for a AAA game, even though I didn't love the game it is better than any sub game that has come out since WoW in quality.
ESO will be P2P until they get the console version hammered out and then it will move to B2P because they aren't charging a sub to the console players. Wildstar will go B2P because it just isn't very good and doesn't have the huge playerbase from the IP that ESO has.
Originally posted by Prhyme Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
An MMO that has to survive on microtransactions becomes about selling microtransactions.
The payment model is no longer how you access the game, the payment model becomes the game.
Every aspect of the game becomes about directing you towards "optional" microtransactions.
So, any aspect of the game that cant be monetized becomes marginalized.
+ ∞
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by Prhyme Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
An MMO that has to survive on microtransactions becomes about selling microtransactions.
The payment model is no longer how you access the game, the payment model becomes the game.
Every aspect of the game becomes about directing you towards "optional" microtransactions.
So, any aspect of the game that cant be monetized becomes marginalized.
This is how a bad game does it. GW2, PS2, PoE, TSW, LOL, Hearthstone never made me feel like I needed the cash shop. A game like Rift that limits your bag space so much you can't even craft without buying more does. A game like SWTOR that throws it in your face every 10 seconds does. Also P2P doesn't mean no microtransactions and B2P doesn't have to have them either. These two things get lumped together but they are completely different elements of the game. SC2 is a B2P game but has no microtransactions.
In fact I can't think of a single game since WoW came out that had a sub and was better than the B2P and F2P games I play. The quality of them certainly isn't any better.
Comments
There is no reason for a new MMORPG to ever be sub based. Sub based games were a product of bandwidth cost which is something that has mostly become a non issue. This is like saying people should pay by the hour like they did when early MUDs hit, it is a just an obsolete payment method.
The only way I'd ever play a sub based game is if the game was free and it was earning its cash off of subs alone. That is a business model that at least makes a little sense. I'm not dishing out full price and then paying monthly and then paying for an expansion, that payment model is just obsolete.
I'm not playing Wildstar regardless because it is a really bad game.
That's a compelling, grammatically sound and informative counter argument you have there, sir.
But I'm going to have to go with... No.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
No reason fo... whut?
Revenue models are about maximizing profit for the company. That's all. That being the case, there is no reason for most new MMORPGs *not* to have both a box price and a mandatory sub. They just need to have the addition of a cash shop planned out and ready to implement for when sub numbers start dropping substantially. The road to maximizing revenue seems to be box price + mandatory sub, wait a few months, add the cash shop and the free option, swim in money pit. Any other approach appears to leave money on the table that could have gone in the companies pockets.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret; the companies making these games are all equally greedy. They just have different theories about which approach will get them the most money.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I dont agree, they all there to make money but greedy is a very big jump from wanting to make money. Its a fact, some game companies only care about the bottom line while others are happy as long as they are making a profit. I have been MMOing for 15 years and I can tell very quickly who I will not buy from any more.
We can agree to disagree, but I don't think the divide is between companies that care about more than the bottom line, and companies that don't care about more than the bottom line. I think it's between companies that are good at pretending to care about more than the bottom line, because they think doing so gets them more business, and companies that are either bad at pretending or don't think there is any point in trying to pretend.
Note, I'm not saying there aren't individuals at any given company who care about things other that maximizing profit, I'm just saying the people who actually make the decisions about revenue models are profit focused, and any decision they make is because they honestly believe it will help them make more money, not because of any creative or "ethical" concerns.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Yes but Im saying looking to make a profit is not what makes a company greedy. Your painting to wide a stroke because by your definition all companies are greedy. I know business that wont compromise on quality and customer service even if they have to lose profits at time to do so. You can call that greedy because you say thats only to win more customers and maybe thats a vald plan but not so with all companies and wanting to make money is not greedy, thats good business for even the customer.
B2P isn't as horrific as F2P but it's still pretty bad. It's nearly impossible for companies to make enough money without putting some kind of pay 2 win in their cash shop.
pay 2 win is for scrubs. Play to win, or don't play.
The model isn't broken anyways (subs). What's broken is the overall game design. Single player games aren't worth a sub. When so-called MMORPGs are designed for "wider appeal" and "casuals" they focus too much on solo and nowhere near enough on grouping, and thus lack the potential to hook people for the long haul. Nobody wants to sub to a causal game they're not fully committed to and is full of single player content (content you can get from almost ANY game genre).
Subs worked when MMORPGs were a distinct genre with a specific type of gameplay (grouping), with content designed to keep people around for the long haul (grouping/raiding), and when the genre wasn't dumbed down for people who have no business leaving the TV set.
Subs can still work if companies produce appropriate content and give you a reason to sub. They just haven't been doing it. Games that follow the SWTOR model of making 95% of the game solo easy mode that you can finish in a few weeks will never be able to stay sub-based. No developer can crank out enough solo easy mode content to keep people hopping. And by the time they realize they didn't do enough with end game and catch up, most of the people who bought the game are done and gone. That's the new design model for modern MMORPGs - the model of sure to fail.
These kinds of designs can sell a lot of units (hi ESO) because RPG players like any solid RPG - and some of these games (SWTOR, TSW for ex) have really good solo content that approaches that of the best of single player RPGs, but that's no way to build a subscriber base and it's not something that's worth a sub. Ie, it's no way to design an MMORPG.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
The correct answer is obviously no.
B2P does not properly support real MMORPGs. The developers want Wildstar to be a real MMO, not a buy to play, beat it, shelf it, pseudo "MMO" like GW2.
Funny since GW2 is probably closest thing to MMO we had in years and WS is a lobby game.
It probably doesnt really matter anyway. We already know that within 3-6 months there wont be enough players subbed and the game will be forced to change business models.
We have seen it with so many new MMO's in the last few years and Wildstar has nothing in its roadmap to indicate any other outcome than the above.
If they can prove me wrong, I will be happy because it might indicate WoW's dominance is finally faltering in a meaningful way but I find this a highly unlikely outcome particularly with TESO also in the market.
Time will tell but I really dont like Wildstar's chances of staying subscription only.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
[mod edit]
Oh and since you are clearly out of the loop, they'll be adding 40 new traits. [mod edit]
The game has no paywalls at all, i don't know what are you talking about, really. Where is the cash shop shoved in your face? Please tell me because idk, if you don't specifically look for it, you'll never see it. Do you get in-game mails to buy stuff from the cash shop? Do you feel like paying $$ to get ascended or legendary? Only a noob would do that anyway. The skilled people in this game could care less about gear.
Sure, living story didn't live up to expectation, but on the bright side, they reworked more than a few zones and destroyed the main player hub. And all you see now is ruin of a once great city. Nobody else does that. Every other MMO feels static, or in TESO's case, phased. LA is destroyed and its for everyone to see. Do name another MMO that does that. Most if not all create the world once and then only expand to it. Gw2 changes that, without a paywall. That's why your post is bullshit.
^^ This.
+ Here we go again
I got your Deliverance!
Where's my banjo?!!
Pay to play all the way.
just got in beta wheres the mouse sensitivy slider ??? aaaargh
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Why doesn't anybody understand the design impacts of a game that is forced to generate all of their additional revenue through mircostransactions. This game was designed for a sub.
This is the real problem right here. That people actually believe this when it has been disproven by many games that are doing just fine using a B2P or F2P model. The only reason to have a sub fee is to get more money out of the suckers that will pay it. The sub fee turns into pure profit for the company. Then they put all of their work into an expansion that they can charge you for again the next year.
P2P existed because hardware and bandwidth was a major expense when the first MMORPGs came out. The money never went into development, it always has gone into maintenance. Games just don't need a sub fee to pay for that maintenance anymore. It is an outdated payment model that is going to die probably after this next wave of games fails to sustain it.
Now if they charge a sub fee and never charge for any expansion content, then a sub fee makes some sort of sense. But any game charging a sub fee that also charges for the expansions is just stealing money from you.
Welp....,if only thick skulls could digest this, but alas .. guess that's why they are are thick skulled.
Not thick but seems to understand the B2P system then the two of you. Changing a game from P2P to B2P with a cash shop takes work. You need to take items out of the game that are worth putting into the item shop. You need to put systems in the game that make you want to use the cash shop. Some games that have made the transition spent 6-12 months setting it up. WoW has been working on it since they released their sparkle pony mount over a year ago and only just started to make the cash shop a thing. A game releasing designed as P2P cant flip a switch, its designed from the ground up. Maybe one day they will make that move but thats a down the road thing.
The payment model is no longer how you access the game, the payment model becomes the game.
Every aspect of the game becomes about directing you towards "optional" microtransactions.
So, any aspect of the game that cant be monetized becomes marginalized.
I'm 100% sure that they built this functionality into the game. Why do you think ESO is using a cash shop format for the basic services they offer? It is so down the line they can add to it. It took TSW almost no time to go to a cash shop from P2P. It also takes no time to add stuff to a cash shop because a good game has almost all cosmetic stuff or just shortcut stuff in the cash shop. The only things worth buying in GW2's shop as an example are inventory/bank slots. Everything else can be obtained in game or is purely cosmetic. GW2 has pretty much proven that B2P works for a AAA game, even though I didn't love the game it is better than any sub game that has come out since WoW in quality.
ESO will be P2P until they get the console version hammered out and then it will move to B2P because they aren't charging a sub to the console players. Wildstar will go B2P because it just isn't very good and doesn't have the huge playerbase from the IP that ESO has.
+ ∞
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
This is how a bad game does it. GW2, PS2, PoE, TSW, LOL, Hearthstone never made me feel like I needed the cash shop. A game like Rift that limits your bag space so much you can't even craft without buying more does. A game like SWTOR that throws it in your face every 10 seconds does. Also P2P doesn't mean no microtransactions and B2P doesn't have to have them either. These two things get lumped together but they are completely different elements of the game. SC2 is a B2P game but has no microtransactions.
In fact I can't think of a single game since WoW came out that had a sub and was better than the B2P and F2P games I play. The quality of them certainly isn't any better.